Men's Rights

[The McMerc]

The Men's Rights advocacy group is a collection of males and females who advocate for the economic, political and social equality of men and boys. The somewhat controversial group has faced lots of criticism in the media, with many saying men's rights is not an issue and does not need addressing. Despite this, men's rights groups continue to gain popularity, especially on the internet. What are your views on these groups? Are they a bunch of women-hating misoginystic fedora-wearing men who are made to humiliate the feminist group, or are they actually onto something?

 

[JKgo]

....?
I don't need a rights group advocating my right to....watch football, drink beer with my buddies, and have a nice Sunday BBQ with family....

I must have been living under a rock or something. {Shrugs shoulder}

 

[Famine]

Men's Rights advocacy groups have been gaining popularity in various forms of media and big websites such as Reddit lately. What are your views on this kind of advocacy? Is it a real problem in society that needs addressing or maybe the group is just a bunch of misogynist know-it-alls who can't stand feminists? Opinions welcome.

Any group that advocates for the rights of a specific demographic misses the point. We should all have equal rights and treatment... under law.

The italicised words seems important there, but the important ones are the last two.

 

[The McMerc]

....?
I don't need a rights group advocating my right to....watch football, drink beer with my buddies, and have a nice Sunday BBQ with family....

I must have been living under a rock or something. {Shrugs shoulder}

That is not what they advocate for. Issues such as domestic violence against men, male rape, false rape accusations, and they way men and boys are represented under media among other things are what they advocate for. One of their main arguments is that these issues are often disregarded by society and this is likely why men's rights is not an issue well-known, so you'll be forgiven for not knowing

 

[Carbonox]

As long as aggressive in-your-face feminism exists, I have no reason whatsoever to stand opposed to a counter-weight of sorts. Those who assume your average Joe - like myself - is a potential rapist at any time because of what I've got in my pants - really have big problems.

 

[Famine]

Issues such as domestic violence against men, male rape, false rape accusations

All things that should be treated equally under law. If domestic violence against and the rapes of men are not being pursued with the same legal diligence because it's only a man who's a victim, there is a legal issue that needs to be addressed.

and they way men and boys are represented under media

And that's not. Unless the media is state-owned (which is itself a bad thing), there should be no requirement for media to represent or treat males equally to females.

Or "other genders", in as much as they actually exist rather than the Tumblr genders.

 

[The McMerc]

All things that should be treated equally under law. If domestic violence against and the rapes of men are not being pursued with the same legal diligence because it's only a man who's a victim, there is a legal issue that needs to be addressed.And that's not. Unless the media is state-owned (which is itself a bad thing), there should be no requirement for media to represent or treat males equally to females.

Or "other genders", in as much as they actually exist rather than the Tumblr genders.

The Men's Rights advocacy group is a collection of males and females who advocate for the economic, political and social equality of men and boys.

Notice the use of the word "social", meaning in everyday life. Yes, the media technically has no requirement to treat men as equal to woman, but that does not mean you can't advocate for it - surely that's not a bad thing.

 

[Famine]

Notice the use of the word "social", meaning in everyday life.

Yep. But then I already addressed that:

Any group that advocates for the rights of a specific demographic misses the point. We should all have equal rights and treatment... under law.

The italicised words seems important there, but the important ones are the last two.

"Rights" is an extremely important term. Rights are are a very specific set of things that all people have (whether they're observed or not) and that laws should be created to protect. "Men's Rights" advocacy is thus exclusively legislative in nature - and while I'll agree that there may be instances where law protects one group differently than another, I'd say that this affects everyone's rights, not just the group in question.

Rights do not extend to "how the media treats a group". If you don't like how certain media treats men - or any demographic - stop buying it or contributing to it. If you want other people to know, spread awareness. That's social advocacy - but nothing to do with rights.


So groups advocating legal equality are neither men's nor women's (nor white nor black, gay nor straight, old nor young), just everyone's rights - and the prefix "Men's" isn't appropriate. Groups advocating social equality aren't advocating rights at all, so the suffix "Rights" isn't appropriate.

It should just be called "Equality advocacy".

 

[Omnis]

This thread is an absurdity. 10/10

 

[The McMerc]

Yep. But then I already addressed that:"Rights" is an extremely important term. Rights are are a very specific set of things that all people have (whether they're observed or not) and that laws should be created to protect. "Men's Rights" advocacy is thus exclusively legislative in nature - and while I'll agree that there may be instances where law protects one group differently than another, I'd say that this affects everyone's rights, not just the group in question.

Rights do not extend to "how the media treats a group". If you don't like how certain media treats men - or any demographic - stop buying it or contributing to it. If you want other people to know, spread awareness. That's social advocacy - but nothing to do with rights.


So groups advocating legal equality are neither men's nor women's (nor white nor black, gay nor straight, old nor young), just everyone's rights - and the prefix "Men's" isn't appropriate. Groups advocating social equality aren't advocating rights at all, so the suffix "Rights" isn't appropriate.

It should just be called "Equality advocacy".

I drop my case then. However I still disagree with the fact that supporting rights for a specific group is illegitimate.

This thread is an absurdity. 10/10

Everyone has a right to their opinion I guess. Absurd how?

 

[Omnis]

There is no such thing as group rights. Did what Famine wrote not even sink in to you?

 

[squadops]

If the group is specialized and equipped to offer legitimate aid to men meeting xzy requirements with nowhere else to turn, I say more power to em. It's sad if there is a need for it but whatever.

 

[The McMerc]

There is no such thing as group rights. Did what Famine wrote not even sink in to you?

Uhh, that's a complete contradiction to the millions of people who identify themselves as feminist, or people who do identify themselves as men's rights activists. I fail to understand how group rights cannot exist. I understand what Famine is saying, and these kind of groups are advocating for equality for all, they do that by focusing on one particular group in society who they feel do not have equal rights.

 

[Famine]

However I still disagree with the fact that supporting rights for a specific group is illegitimate.

Let's just dodge a terminological hillock here - rights are innate to everyone and what you're referring to as "rights" is in fact "legal recognition of rights".

Say there is a law that says black people must be paid less than white people. What's the first thing you spot about that law? It's probably that it's a law that treats black people worse than white people - and that's entirely fair, accurate and as it should be.

There's a second thing you should spot though. It's a law that treats white people differently to black people. Sure, it may treat them better, but it's still a law that says white people must be treated differently to black people because it says that black people must be treated differently to white people.

If there were a campaign to abolish this law - as there should be - it would probably be painted as a Black Rights issue, but it's not. It's an equality issue - it's not a law that treats White Famine and Black Famine the same.


There are no Black Rights and White Rights, Men's Rights and Women's Rights. There are rights and there are laws that either recognise them or fail to recognise them.

It's really important to acknowledge that when a law treats a group more badly than another group, it's an issue for everyone, not just that group.

 

[The McMerc]

Let's just dodge a terminological hillock here - rights are innate to everyone and what you're referring to as "rights" is in fact "legal recognition of rights".

Say there is a law that says black people must be paid less than white people. What's the first thing you spot about that law? It's probably that it's a law that treats black people worse than white people - and that's entirely fair, accurate and as it should be.

There's a second thing you should spot though. It's a law that treats white people differently to black people. Sure, it may treat them better, but it's still a law that says white people must be treated differently to black people because it says that black people must be treated differently to white people.

If there were a campaign to abolish this law - as there should be - it would probably be painted as a Black Rights issue, but it's not. It's an equality issue - it's not a law that treats White Famine and Black Famine the same.


There are no Black Rights and White Rights, Men's Rights and Women's Rights. There are rights and there are laws that either recognise them or fail to recognise them.

It's really important to acknowledge that when a law treats a group more badly than another group, it's an issue for everyone, not just that group.

So are you saying that it's pointless for someone to advocate for the rights of a particular group of people because that issue affects everyone?

 

[Famine]

So are you saying that it's pointless for someone to advocate for the rights of a particular group of people because that issue affects everyone?

No, just that focussing it on the particular group is inaccurate - because, as you say, that issue affects everyone. Laws established to treat groups of different people differently affect all people by denying them equality.


That notwithstanding, it actually doesn't take much imagination to create a situation where a black person being paid less by law directly affects and causes hardship to white people. Say, the unusually pale-skinned kids of a ginger person and a black person...

If you'd prefer the focus to be on men's and women's issues, how about the female children being negatively affected by the presumption that their father, when accused of rape by their babysitter, is probably guilty and placed on remand or imprisoned (and shanked because one thing the prison community hates is a rapist). The law treats men differently and worse, while affecting women for the worse too...

 

[The McMerc]

No, just that focussing it on the particular group is inaccurate - because, as you say, that issue affects everyone. Laws established to treat groups of different people differently affect all people by denying them equality.


That notwithstanding, it actually doesn't take much imagination to create a situation where a black person being paid less by law directly affects and causes hardship to white people. Say, the unusually pale-skinned kids of a ginger person and a black person...

If you'd prefer the focus to be on men's and women's issues, how about the female children being negatively affected by the presumption that their father, when accused of rape by their babysitter, is probably guilty and placed on remand or imprisoned (and shanked because one thing the prison community hates is a rapist). The law treats men differently and worse, while affecting women for the worse too...

I concede . Thanks for taking a friendly approach towards that, I guess my views on rights advocacy groups has changed then.

 

[Famine]

I concede . Thanks for taking a friendly approach towards that, I guess my views on rights advocacy groups has changed then.

👍

Personally I can see that they mean well, but the fact is we should pursue all injustices against demographics as though they are an injustice to all of us - because they are, even when it's an injustice that benefits you.

The "Group Rights" labels need to be dropped too, as they inherently suggest that they're not interested when it's an injustice against a different group - would a Men's Rights group advocate against a law that treats women more badly, or a feminist group advocate against a law that treats women better than men?

 

[The McMerc]

👍

Personally I can see that they mean well, but the fact is we should pursue all injustices against demographics as though they are an injustice to all of us - because they are, even when it's an injustice that benefits you.

The "Group Rights" labels need to be dropped too, as they inherently suggest that they're not interested when it's an injustice against a different group - would a Men's Rights group advocate against a law that treats women more badly, or a feminist group advocate against a law that treats women better than men?

I guess the prevalence of group rights advocates, especially on platforms such as tumblr, have twisted my views a bit.

 

[Omnis]

Outstanding. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right. You don't have to fight feminist fire with (masculist?) fire. It is extinguished when individuality prevails.

 

[The McMerc]

Probably the first time a group of people have agreed on something concerning this.

 

[eran0004]

The Men's Rights advocacy group is a collection of males and females who advocate for the economic, political and social equality of men and boys.

Let's be honest, they're not. They're anti-feminists and it's simply a reaction on women's rights groups.

Ironically, feminism does cover the rights for both men and women.

 

[The McMerc]

Let's be honest, they're not. They're anti-feminists and it's simply a reaction on women's rights groups.

Ironically, feminism does cover the rights for both men and women.

That may be the definition, but you'll find that most modern feminists almost pay no attention to men's rights. Anita Sarkeesian, for example, stated on twitter that men cannot experience sexism.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

What's with the poll? There's no option to say that you don't support them but don't think they're a hate group, and "i don't care" is on there twice. Additionally, the last option assumes that that's what these groups are doing. Not a very good or impartial poll, if you ask me.

 

[Grayfox]

with many saying men's rights is not an issue and does not need addressing

Tell that to men who have been falsely accused of sexual assault.

The way many justice systems are, a women can say this person raped me, they get taken in and if the person is famous and the media hear about it that persons life is F'ed if he did not do it and the accusation was a lie.

 

[The McMerc]

What's with the poll? There's no option to say that you don't support them but don't think they're a hate group, and "i don't care" is on there twice. Additionally, the last option assumes that that's what these groups are doing. Not a very good or impartial poll, if you ask me.

Indifference and not caring less are different things. Current men's rights activists not supporting gender equality is up to subjective opinion, however the basic idea of the movement is of gender equality. If you do not support them but don't think they're a hate group, then you would be indifferent.

Tell that to men who have been falsely accused of sexual assault.

The way many justice systems are, a women can say this person raped me, they get taken in and if the person is famous and the media hear about it that persons life is F'ed if he did not do it and the accusation was a lie.

@Grayfox Yes I completely agree with you. I was just commenting that that is some people's opinions.

 

[eran0004]

That may be the definition, but you'll find that most modern feminists almost pay no attention to men's rights. Anita Sarkeesian, for example, stated on twitter that men cannot experience sexism.

On the contrary, I think you'll find that modern feminism deals quite a lot with men's issues.

I don't follow Sarkeesian on Twitter (or anyone else for that matter) and I haven't seen her tweet so if you want to discuss that please provide a link.

 

[The McMerc]

On the contrary, I think you'll find that modern feminism deals quite a lot with men's issues.

I don't follow Sarkeesian on Twitter (or anyone else for that matter) and I haven't seen her tweet so if you want to discuss that please provide a link.

Here.

 

[eran0004]

Here.

And what would you say is the problem?

 

[The McMerc]

And what would you say is the problem?

The problem with the tweet? Well it's complete nonsense. To say men cannot experience sexism is like saying white people cannot experience racism. It defies logic.